Ron Paul: Why should those that honor religious freedom support him?

[hard@work]

Those were responses to Spirit, you didn't seem to make the distinction with him... as post after post was an insult... pompous prick, thick skull, fearmongerer... etc..etc..

Then be the bigger man (or woman)? Your legitimate concerns may be addressed in a different manner? Do not fall down into troll-isms? Address the other sides concerns with sincerity and show understanding of the position then re postulate your opinion in a manner that may show compromise? Offer a direct solution? Do something aside from fan the flames and argue?

Don't troll.

 

[Kade]

Then be the bigger man (or woman)? Your legitimate concerns may be addressed in a different manner? Do not fall down into troll-isms? Address the other sides concerns with sincerity and show understanding of the position the re postulate your opinion in a manner that may show compromise? Offer a direct solution? Do something aside from fan the flames and argue?

Don't troll.

Have you done this at all?

My argument again:

Ron Paul proposed and supported an AMENDMENT to the constitution that would enforce states to ignore the establishment clause while tax payer money continued to support education.

The First Amendment applies to State Institutions since the turn of the 19th century.

What reasons do an atheist, like myself, have for supporting someone who believes:

"Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view. The justification is always that someone, somewhere, might possibly be offended or feel uncomfortable living in the midst of a largely Christian society, so all must yield to the fragile sensibilities of the few. The ultimate goal of the anti-religious elites is to transform America into a completely secular nation, a nation that is legally and culturally biased against Christianity."

 

[hard@work]

Circular arguments from incredibly important people who fan flame wars are still circular arguments from incredibly important people who fan flame wars. You've given your concerns. I've given my position. Many others have as well. Good, we have discussion.

So then, if you are so just as to share with us your opinion what then is your ideal solution? Can this be a framework for us to follow? Should this be a common theme among at least some of us that we should use to petition Ron Paul? What other ideals do you share with Ron Paul? Which of those is greatest and most likely to supersede your legitimate concerns?

If you're not a troll let's get crackin.

 

[Jon S]

Have you done this at all?

My argument again:

Ron Paul proposed and supported an AMENDMENT to the constitution that would enforce states to ignore the establishment clause while tax payer money continued to support education.

The First Amendment applies to State Institutions since the turn of the 19th century.

What reasons do an atheist, like myself, have for supporting someone who believes:

"Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view. The justification is always that someone, somewhere, might possibly be offended or feel uncomfortable living in the midst of a largely Christian society, so all must yield to the fragile sensibilities of the few. The ultimate goal of the anti-religious elites is to transform America into a completely secular nation, a nation that is legally and culturally biased against Christianity."

now im not speaking directly for ron paul but my interpretation of this is that no one has the right to tell you that you can't practice religion publicly. i don't see him saying that those who aren't religious are wrong but that they do not have the right to ban people from publicly worshipping. he's not saying that it should be state or even federally sponsored, just that it should not be outlawed, which i wholeheartedly agree with.

just my interpretation of it

 

[Spirit of '76]

While I stand by my statement that I'm done with this debate (or what it has descended into), let me say a few things more.

To hard@work:

I don't think Kade is a "troll". I think he/she has legitimate concerns, even if I think his/her fears are unfounded. He/she and I both traded insults and flames, and we both engaged in some grandstanding and chest-thumping. This is why I dislike trying to have such political debates online; discussing these things face to face is usually so much more productive and civil.

To Kade:

As I have stated several times, I do not speak for Ron Paul. Do not mistake my opinions and views for his, or for that matter anyone's but my own. Again, I think your fears of "dominionism" and "theocracy" are unfounded, and I don't think your interpretation of the bills you mentioned here is an accurate one.

If you want a clarification of Ron Paul's official position, this is not necessarily the place to get it. Yes, we here are grassroots supporters of Congressman Paul, but we cannot speak for the man or his campaign, and as you have seen, we here have a variety of our own opinions on this matter.

If you want absolute clarification of where Ron Paul stands on these issues, and if you want your concerns addressed in a truly substantive and official way, you're in the wrong place. I would suggest that if you want your concerns addressed by Congressman Paul, you write to him directly at his congressional office.

The Honorable Ron Paul
United States House of Representatives
203 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-4314

 

[Rastis McNastis]

State institutions, like public schools, are simply that: state institutions.

They are not part of the federal government, and are thus not subject to the restriction that "Congress shall make no law..."

The fact is that the Constitution prohibits the federal government from establishing a state church. At the same time, it prohibits the federal government from preventing the free exercise of religion, even if people like you do not like that religion.

What is "creative" here is your bizarre interpretation of the establishment clause to read that the federal government has the obligation to prohibit the free exercise of religion because you personally find it offensive.

What you are promoting here is the tyranny of the minority, with the federal courts as a cudgel used to browbeat people into hiding their religious convictions because you disagree with them.

Might I interject?

Perhaps this has already been brought up, for I have not yet read the entire thread.

... but is the tyranny of the majority you support much better than the supposed tyranny of the minority you decry?

Even if the Constitution does not explicitly ban promotion of religion at the state level in the establishment clause, the Bill of Rights most certainly protects the right to practice religion how you see fit. With public monies being spent on various churches, it is impossible to have freedom from such religions, and undeniably the liberty to lack is integral to the liberty itself.

 

[Mesogen]

Yes, but under Ron Paul, what tax money?

I've got news for you. Under Ron Paul you will still pay income taxes.

First off, he couldn't abolish the IRS as president if he tried. Second, I've heard him in interviews where he said "before we can dismantle the IRS, people have to change they way they think about the role of government in their lives, the government has to stop spending, etc."

no Ron Paul. You have to abolish the IRS first. You have to eliminate the very things that enable the spending, the IRS and the Fed.

edit: oops, didn't realize this thread was 19 pages long. oops.

 

[Kade]

now im not speaking directly for ron paul but my interpretation of this is that no one has the right to tell you that you can't practice religion publicly. i don't see him saying that those who aren't religious are wrong but that they do not have the right to ban people from publicly worshipping. he's not saying that it should be state or even federally sponsored, just that it should not be outlawed, which i wholeheartedly agree with.

just my interpretation of it

By spirits strict interpretation of the constitution for words only, technically, you do not have a right to practice religion publicly...

Since he went down that path...

 

[hard@work]

I don't think Kade is a "troll". I think he/she has legitimate concerns

Same here, I just like to challenge people to break free from that.

;-)

Evil little troll that I am.

 

[Kade]

While I stand by my statement that I'm done with this debate (or what it has descended into), let me say a few things more.

To hard@work:

I don't think Kade is a "troll". I think he/she has legitimate concerns, even if I think his/her fears are unfounded. He/she and I both traded insults and flames, and we both engaged in some grandstanding and chest-thumping. This is why I dislike trying to have such political debates online; discussing these things face to face is usually so much more productive and civil.

To Kade:

As I have stated several times, I do not speak for Ron Paul. Do not mistake my opinions and views for his, or for that matter anyone's but my own. Again, I think your fears of "dominionism" and "theocracy" are unfounded, and I don't think your interpretation of the bills you mentioned here is an accurate one.

If you want a clarification of Ron Paul's official position, this is not necessarily the place to get it. Yes, we here are grassroots supporters of Congressman Paul, but we cannot speak for the man or his campaign, and as you have seen, we here have a variety of our own opinions on this matter.

If you want absolute clarification of where Ron Paul stands on these issues, and if you want your concerns addressed in a truly substantive and official way, you're in the wrong place. I would suggest that if you want your concerns addressed by Congressman Paul, you write to him directly at his congressional office.

The Honorable Ron Paul
United States House of Representatives
203 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-4314

I came here Spirit, because 5 of my hand written letters have been ignored. I appreciate the sudden change in tone though.

 

[Kade]

The Constitution has been interpreted to apply the first amendment to the state institutions... in both ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE and FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION.

Claiming that the state has the right to make a law, which puts tax payer money in religious indoctrination, is also saying the state has the right to outlaw Religious expression altogether... does anyone else see that?

 

[Mises.org]

Kade, we go back a ways and I have to say that I agree that some of Paul's views on religion turn me off.

However, when compared to the horrors of all the other candidates out there, I don't see how there is a better choice.

All of the other major candidates have pandered to the religious right, even the socialists... I mean, Democrats... and I needn't remind us all of the problems with the Republican party being hijacked by the religious right.

However, I don't think that Ron Paul would really allow that

Lately I've read a flurry of secular articles which have decried Ron Paul, such as this one:

http://atheism.about.com/b/a/259335.htm

While I normally enjoy Austin Cline (and am even a regular subscriber to his articles), this recent article disappointed me. He took many quotes out of context and seemed to employ a slippery slope too much for my tastes.

(And for the record, my views are more in step with Edward Tabash on the First Amendment issue):
http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...l=6&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1


From what I've seen from Paul though, I still think that he's the best chance we have for attaining the 'seperation of' and 'seperation from' that we're seeking, while still getting the other benefits that Paul will bring with him.

 

[Spirit of '76]

Might I interject?

Perhaps this has already been brought up, for I have not yet read the entire thread.

... but is the tyranny of the majority you support much better than the supposed tyranny of the minority you decry?

Man, I really don't want to be dragged into this again, but this is a total mischaracterization of my argument. I in no wise support a "tyranny of the majority"; I support the right of all individuals to free expression of their religious beliefs, even if I personally find those beliefs odious.

I was raised to be respectful of other people's religious convictions and to be firm enough in my own that I am not unduly frightened when they express them.

I'm sure whatever forum or organization you guys are coming from has already decided that I'm a militant christian advocating "dominionism", but you couldn't be further from the truth. If you want further clarification on where I stand on this issue, please read the remainder of the thread.

Thanks, and please don't drag me back into this mess.

 

[Kade]

Might I interject?

Perhaps this has already been brought up, for I have not yet read the entire thread.

... but is the tyranny of the majority you support much better than the supposed tyranny of the minority you decry?

Even if the Constitution does not explicitly ban promotion of religion at the state level in the establishment clause, the Bill of Rights most certainly protects the right to practice religion how you see fit. With public monies being spent on various churches, it is impossible to have freedom from such religions, and undeniably the liberty to lack is integral to the liberty itself.

We've been over this... some here don't think tyranny by the majority is at all worrisome.

 

[Kade]

Man, I really don't want to be dragged into this again, but this is a total mischaracterization of my argument. I in no wise support a "tyranny of the majority"; I support the right of all individuals to free expression of their religious beliefs, even if I personally find those beliefs odious.

I was raised to be respectful of other people's religious convictions and to be firm enough in my own that I am not unduly frightened when they express them.

What right have you, if your state bans it Spirit?

 

[Kade]

Kade, we go back a ways and I have to say that I agree that some of Paul's views on religion turn me off.

However, when compared to the horrors of all the other candidates out there, I don't see how there is a better choice.

All of the other major candidates have pandered to the religious right, even the socialists... I mean, Democrats... and I needn't remind us all of the problems with the Republican party being hijacked by the religious right.

However, I don't think that Ron Paul would really allow that

Lately I've read a flurry of secular articles which have decried Ron Paul, such as this one:

http://atheism.about.com/b/a/259335.htm

While I normally enjoy Austin Cline (and am even a regular subscriber to his articles), this recent article disappointed me. He took many quotes out of context and seemed to employ a slippery slope too much for my tastes.

(And for the record, my views are more in step with Edward Tabash on the First Amendment issue):
http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...l=6&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1


From what I've seen from Paul though, I still think that he's the best chance we have for attaining the 'seperation of' and 'seperation from' that we're seeking, while still getting the other benefits that Paul will bring with him.

I know bro, but I fear the kind of person willing to re-clarify the first amendment because they believe this is a robustly Christian nation... it is not... I don't know... it scares me.. but I don't have a better choice. What kind of supreme court justice will this man choose?

One willing to define human life at conception, impose a state mandatory re-clarification of anti-establishment? religiously tolerant? I feel hated..

 

[Mises.org]

I know...


But to be perfectly honest... I fear an America run by a Hillary Clinton or an Obama more than I do an America run by someone as ridiculously fundamentalist as Pat Robertson... well, maybe not quite that much.

 

[Rastis McNastis]

Man, I really don't want to be dragged into this again, but this is a total mischaracterization of my argument. I in no wise support a "tyranny of the majority"; I support the right of all individuals to free expression of their religious beliefs, even if I personally find those beliefs odious.

I was raised to be respectful of other people's religious convictions and to be firm enough in my own that I am not unduly frightened when they express them.

I'm sure whatever forum or organization you guys are coming from has already decided that I'm a militant christian advocating "dominionism", but you couldn't be further from the truth. If you want further clarification on where I stand on this issue, please read the remainder of the thread.

Thanks, and please don't drag me back into this mess.

Well, your argument seems to be that the only reason obvious promotions of religion should be allowed is because they are not occurring at the state level.

Then it is not the religious nature that makes such promotion illegal, and the religious rights of the minority have no protection from the States.

Ohio, the state of my residence, could therefore ban the practice of Christianity, Judaism, or require belief in a deity. Since apparently I have no Constitutional protections, what is to stop a law that will make it a capital crime to be a scientologist?

Would you support this... or, more importantly.... might the majority support such legislation?

 

[Kade]

Also, on this very forum, this post:

********************************************

Dr. Paul's weak theological statement
I'm a Christian and when I think of a statement of faith I don't think of what Dr. Paul has laid out as his statement of faith. I think of something theologically substantive. I rarely criticize Dr. Paul, however as a Christian I like to think that I ought to have a theological basis laid out for myself which I can explain if called upon to explain. I understand the importance for a politician to avoid being "distasteful" by pandering and using the word Jesus every other word (ahem... Brownback) however I think it would be impressive to Christian voters (even if some might disagree with him on certain points) if he laid out his beliefs better.

For Example I believe:

There is one God with three persons ... the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Sin is disobedience to God's Law, available through natural and specific revelation.
That Jesus Christ died as a propitiation for sins so that sinful man might receive freely by grace salvation and eternal life.
That the Bible is the inspired word of God, inerrant in original form, and the sets out a model for the way human beings ought to live their lives.
That the punishment of sin is to spend eternity in Hell.


....
This is just a little bit of what I believe. I think something that is this simplistic in form would be sufficient for many (especially evangelical) believers to find impressive. Most who call on the name of Christ haven't even thought this deeply about their theology, even if these statements are relatively simple theological statements. Dr. Paul isn't afraid to be criticized for what he believes, nor lose his voting base, or compromise in any way so I'm wondering why he has been so vague on what he means when he says he's a Christian. It is self-evident that he lives a life consistent with Christian values and votes accordingly. In a world where a Mormon can run for President under "Christian Values" this clearly shows that too many people don't really understand what it means when you claim the name of Christ. Dr. Paul attends a southern Baptist church in Texas, and the SBC has in one way or another affirmed the short statement of faith I have listed above so I'm guessing he does believe these things. I just wish he would publically affirm them.

************************************

Yikes!

 

[Spirit of '76]

Damn, you guys have your meathooks in me deeper than the Truthers.

Ohio, the state of my residence, could therefore ban the practice of Christianity, Judaism, or require belief in a deity. Since apparently I have no Constitutional protections, what is to stop a law that will make it a capital crime to be a scientologist?

Ron Paul's proposed amendment would:

H. J. RES. 78 (1997):

To secure the people's right to acknowledge God according to the dictates of conscience: Neither the United States nor any State shall establish any official religion, but the people's right to pray and to recognize their religious beliefs, heritage, or traditions on public property, including schools, shall not be infringed. Neither the United States nor any State shall require any person to join in prayer or other religious activity, prescribe school prayers, discriminate against religion, or deny equal access to a benefit on account of religion."